• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FACT CHECK: Health insurer profits not so fat

No, It's not. Competition ALWAYS benefits the consumer. It drives prices down. That decreases profits for the producer. Your concept that it decreases risk to the insurance company so it's beneficial doesn't wash because the other insurance companies would also be taking an equivalent market share of the good profitable consumers.

In the majority of cases. However, if firm A holds a competitive advantage over their competition, let us assume product quality, competition would then lead to a scenario where the less advantaged firms (call them B) produced inferior products (as income rises, consumers are more likely to purchase from firm A, and not firm(s) B)

This allows for a positively sloped demand curve. Crazy huh?

There is error in your example, because anti-trust laws wouldn't allow that to happen.

It was just a highly assumptive example:)

Transcrafts are crap. We found common ground!...:rofl. I'm a Fontaine guy. Reason being, I owned a 97 Fontaine flatbed in '01 sold it, that guy wrecked it, he sold it to another guy that rebuilt it, then it got burned, then I bought it for a song and rebuilt it and she's still going strong.

Never worked on a Fontaine. In my area, the nice steel ones are Great Danes. :)

They do., I think it's like 80,000 with truck and trailer.
Not relevant but I couldn't resist.

I was thinking more along the lines of the yearly aggregate.
 
You just said it was illegal and in the very next sentence you call them crooks...LMAO!!!!

They are Crooks! Keep burying head in sand buster:roll:
 
I didn't know this. Health insurance companies only make a 6% +/- profit? That's a going out of business profit margin. I wouldn't own a business that only made a 6% profit margin. Hell, if I had a business that didn't make 10%+, I would close it down and walk off and that's still below the bottom end of the national average. I mean, a business that actually meant to make money and not just a tax shelter. The tax shelters I own make negative profits, but that's what they're supposed to do.

These are the evil, greedy, money grubbin' insurance companies that the Libbos tell us about? Really? No wonder insurance companies turn people away for pre-existing conditions. With a 6% profit margin, there's no way an insurance company could staty afloat if they insured every swinging dick that signed up. Good God!!!

This just goes to how how dishonest Libbos and the MSM really are. How dare they not reveal this information before now?

My question is, why does it matter? For profit health care is unethical anyway. Also, why is it that you trust YahooNews over other news organization that contradict YahooNews..... Oh, I know, cuz they agree with you. Whatever. One news source against all the others who are following reports of their own and you only believe the one that agrees with you. Show's how dishonest your point of view is.
 
My question is, why does it matter? For profit health care is unethical anyway. Also, why is it that you trust YahooNews over other news organization that contradict YahooNews..... Oh, I know, cuz they agree with you. Whatever. One news source against all the others who are following reports of their own and you only believe the one that agrees with you. Show's how dishonest your point of view is.


And there is the crux of the liberal argument in not just health care, but in oil, in Wal Mart, in anything that they don't own, work at, or benefit from. And that is that ANY profit made by businesses they don't like is too much.

Nevermind that the profit motive is what spurs ingenuity, and invention.


j-mac
 
On a billion, obviously. The part that you obviously don't understand, is that either way, you still only have a 6% profit to operate off of for the following year. Which means, that you spent 940 million bucks this past year, and for next year, you only have 60 million bucks to cover the years expenses, in case there are any shortfalls. And, that means, that if you go through that 60 million in the first 4-6 months, well, you're ****ed for the rest of the year. Yeah, they call that operating capital. Surely, the math just jumps out at you. Now, that is common sense...:rofl

You should fire your CPA. Profit is the amount of money left over AFTER operating expenses have been subtracted from your assets. There are no profits if your assets do not exceed liabilities. You can't have $940 million of expenses next year with just $60 million to cover them because a business is legally insolvent if it does not have assets to cover the liabilities as they become due. So your financial example makes no sense because those companies would be closed down if they submitted such a defective balance sheet to the public. The logic "should have just jumped out at you"? :rofl

Furthermore, insurance companies rely on premiums that policy-holders pay every year to finance the company. They do not rely on their profits to pay next year's bills. So, I would not worry too much about the health insurance industry if I were you.

The question I ask all conservatives is: are you more likely to benefit from (a) health care reform; or (b) the excessive profits of the health insurance industry??? And if your answer is (a) then why do you guys work so hard to defend something you have nothing to do with? Its like Joe the Plumber complaining about taxes on the wealthy while he barely has a pot-to-piss-in. It must be "Silly Season" again.
 
Last edited:
And there is the crux of the liberal argument in not just health care, but in oil, in Wal Mart, in anything that they don't own, work at, or benefit from. And that is that ANY profit made by businesses they don't like is too much.

Nevermind that the profit motive is what spurs ingenuity, and invention.


j-mac

That dog don't hunt no more. While it is true that capitalism spurs innovation; the health insurance industry doesn't create anything except new ways to deny coverage. No human; no socialist or capitalist; wants to die because of a business decision. Let the capitalist compete for the markets in consumer delights such as toys and shoes and hats. But when it comes to matters of life and death Americans do not want self-interested shareholders blocking the doors to the operating room.
 
Someone getting paid for their labor is unethical? How so?

What labor does a health insurance person provide??? Do we really need this middle-man taking a portion of our health care dollar for non-medical purposes??? This outdated method of insurance will eventually be scrapped or lead us into bankruptcy. We are the only advanced nation that operates under these antiquated guidelines. Maybe everyone else is crazy and we alone see the truth; or maybe we are crazy and the rest of the world is correct.

Ask yourself this question: why do people from around the world rush to America for medical treatment; but no country in the world is modeling their health care system after ours??? We have the best doctors but a flawed and very expensive health insurance system.
 
What labor does a health insurance person provide??? Do we really need this middle-man taking a portion of our health care dollar for non-medical purposes??? This outdated method of insurance will eventually be scrapped or lead us into bankruptcy. We are the only advanced nation that operates under these antiquated guidelines. Maybe everyone else is crazy and we alone see the truth; or maybe we are crazy and the rest of the world is correct.

Ask yourself this question: why do people from around the world rush to America for medical treatment; but no country in the world is modeling their health care system after ours??? We have the best doctors but a flawed and very expensive health insurance system.

It's a job people get paid money to do that job, the they take that money and buy things with it. But, hey, your boy has a 10% unemployment rate hanging over his head, already, anyway. Hell, creating jobs and salvaging the economy was never the objective anyway, was it?
 
You should fire your CPA. Profit is the amount of money left over AFTER operating expenses have been subtracted from your assets. There are no profits if your assets do not exceed liabilities. You can't have $940 million of expenses next year with just $60 million to cover them because a business is legally insolvent if it does not have assets to cover the liabilities as they become due. So your financial example makes no sense because those companies would be closed down if they submitted such a defective balance sheet to the public. The logic "should have just jumped out at you"? :rofl
So if an insurance company gets $20 million in claims on January 1, how do they pay those claims? With last years profits. Obviously the 60 million isn't going to cover a years expenses but they need money to operate on until the premium payments start coming in.
Or what if they lose money next year? It pays to have a cash cushion just in case.

Furthermore, insurance companies rely on premiums that policy-holders pay every year to finance the company. They do not rely on their profits to pay next year's bills. So, I would not worry too much about the health insurance industry if I were you.

and if the expenses outweigh the income at some point in time?

The question I ask all conservatives is: are you more likely to benefit from (a) health care reform; or (b) the excessive profits of the health insurance industry??? And if your answer is (a) then why do you guys work so hard to defend something you have nothing to do with? Its like Joe the Plumber complaining about taxes on the wealthy while he barely has a pot-to-piss-in. It must be "Silly Season" again.


I benefit more from a profitable health insurance company.
 
What labor does a health insurance person provide??? Do we really need this middle-man taking a portion of our health care dollar for non-medical purposes???
If you feel it's unjust, don't use an insurance company.
The original statement was that "For Profit health care" is unethical. I have no problem with doctors, nurses, hospitals or even *gasp* insurance companies making a profit.

This outdated method of insurance will eventually be scrapped or lead us into bankruptcy. We are the only advanced nation that operates under these antiquated guidelines. Maybe everyone else is crazy and we alone see the truth; or maybe we are crazy and the rest of the world is correct.
I view it as the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with government control of their lives, they are used to it. We [the United States] are *supposed* to be a free country built on individual liberty government controlled health care goes directly against that concept.

Ask yourself this question: why do people from around the world rush to America for medical treatment; but no country in the world is modeling their health care system after ours??? We have the best doctors but a flawed and very expensive health insurance system.
No other country models their health care after ours because they don't need to. When their system fails they run here and get the care they need. Paying full price for it at that. We have the best doctors, the largest quantity of equipment and facilities, and the most advanced equipment specifically because some "greedy bastard" whats to make some money.
 
It's a job people get paid money to do that job, the they take that money and buy things with it. But, hey, your boy has a 10% unemployment rate hanging over his head, already, anyway. Hell, creating jobs and salvaging the economy was never the objective anyway, was it?

If your "job" consist of thinking up new ways to deny health coverage to the sick; then you need to find a new line of work. When insurance companies deny coverage to one of their policyholders; the rest of us must pay for the person when they visit the emergency room. That means we are allowing the private insurers to collect premiums and then bill the American taxpayer when their policyholder gets sick. Americans are sick and tired of bailing out corrupt corporations; so despite your honorable plea for their feeble jobs; the health insurance industry is going to undergo major surgery.
 
So if an insurance company gets $20 million in claims on January 1, how do they pay those claims? With last years profits. Obviously the 60 million isn't going to cover a years expenses but they need money to operate on until the premium payments start coming in.
Or what if they lose money next year? It pays to have a cash cushion just in case.



and if the expenses outweigh the income at some point in time?




I benefit more from a profitable health insurance company.

Most businesses time their expenses with their revenues. Its a procedure known as "matching". If a business receives its revenues during a certain time of the year its policies will require claims to be submitted after the revenues are received.

If expenses outweigh revenues at some point then the business fails; and if you have to deny claims and charge excessive premiums to make a profit; then you no longer have a viable business model. In which case your business deserves to fail.

You are one of the few people in America who will benefit from insurance profits more than you will benefit from insurance reform. The only thing I can tell you is that the will of the majority seems to be against you on this one. You may have to concede defeat on this issue.
 
Last edited:
If you feel it's unjust, don't use an insurance company.
The original statement was that "For Profit health care" is unethical. I have no problem with doctors, nurses, hospitals or even *gasp* insurance companies making a profit.


I view it as the rest of the world doesn't have a problem with government control of their lives, they are used to it. We [the United States] are *supposed* to be a free country built on individual liberty government controlled health care goes directly against that concept.


No other country models their health care after ours because they don't need to. When their system fails they run here and get the care they need. Paying full price for it at that. We have the best doctors, the largest quantity of equipment and facilities, and the most advanced equipment specifically because some "greedy bastard" whats to make some money.

I would be more than happy to exclude the insurance company if the doctors and hospitals agree to treat me at the same price I would pay to an insurance company. Few people could pay cash for health care because they will be charged exorbitant rates. So your proposal seems unrealistic.

I don't mind profit but profit is too superficial to stand in the way of treating people when they are sick. Conservatives must learn one lesson if they are ever going to revive their dying party: whenever the conflict rears its ugly head you must always support human beings over corporations; people over profits. By allowing Haliburton and the banks to rip off Americans; conservatives got their buts kicked by the voters.

Americans want regulated "freedom"; that's why we adopted a Constitution instead of the Articles of Confederation. Too much freedom just like too much regulation is dangerous. I don't want to pay high health insurance premiums or get denied coverage when I'm sick just because some cowboys want to pound their chest about capitalism and the great American way. Leave the cliches behind and let's begin to run this country pragmatically and strategically.

Foreign countries are not adopting our health care model because it does not work. We pay the highest fees and get some of the worst results. Some parts of America have infant mortality rates of third world countries. Foreigners are not flocking to America to use our insurance system. They use our hospitals and doctors that have unique abilities but our health insurance system is outdated and needs to be traded in and demolished like a "cash-for-clunker".
 
Last edited:
I would be more than happy to exclude the insurance company if the doctors and hospitals agree to treat me at the same price I would pay to an insurance company.


Same price? Hell, in today's market, most if not all in the health field will give substantial discounts for cash.


j-mac
 
Same price? Hell, in today's market, most if not all in the health field will give substantial discounts for cash.


j-mac

This is certainly true of my dentist. Although he says to keep it on the down low - I wonder if the insurance agreements require him charge the same for cash as insurance and they just do it anyway. If this is widespread it means those with insurance are paying higher prices due to those without insurance (that's a duh), so the mandate to carry insurance is a good thing. The government option is the only fair way to implement a mandate and not have it end up being government welfare to insurance companies.
 
This is certainly true of my dentist. Although he says to keep it on the down low - I wonder if the insurance agreements require him charge the same for cash as insurance and they just do it anyway. If this is widespread it means those with insurance are paying higher prices due to those without insurance (that's a duh), so the mandate to carry insurance is a good thing. The government option is the only fair way to implement a mandate and not have it end up being government welfare to insurance companies.



:doh no, no, no, NO! A government option is not an option at all. For weeks everyone on this board, and even democrats themselves have tried to ram down this country's throat that this monstrosity of a bill would help the nation, increase competition, and lower the deficit. All lies.

I have posted numerous times the words of demo congress people all saying that this is in essence a trojan horse to a single payer government run system.

This is ignored. If you really want competition, then open up insurance sales to a nation wide status.


j-mac
 
Same price? Hell, in today's market, most if not all in the health field will give substantial discounts for cash.


j-mac

You must be talking about the prices doctors charge for a checkup. But a large number of Americans are not receiving discounts for cash as you suggest:

"Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine." Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies - CNN.com

Let's be realistic enough to admit that there are some medical bills that the average, middle-class, family living in America simply could not afford. In these cases we need insurance to cover the cost of keeping us alive. This is a basic component of the social contract recognized by almost every civilized nation in this world. But for some reason American conservatives have regressed into a pre-civil society where each man provided for his own health care. You know, the era when life expectancy was about 50 years old. I want all conservatives to be warned: when you want to return to the past; time will pass you by. The American people are bypassing the conservatives who yearn for yesterday.

Let us get rid of the employee-based health care system. That was for the old, industrial era. Small businesses, which create most jobs, are not offering health care. So many working people go without insurance; the employee-based system does not cover them. So we must start to think outside the box and get more people covered at affordable prices. And the only way to do this is through a Public Option.
 
What makes you think a public option is going to be more affordable?
 
I would be more than happy to exclude the insurance company if the doctors and hospitals agree to treat me at the same price I would pay to an insurance company. Few people could pay cash for health care because they will be charged exorbitant rates. So your proposal seems unrealistic.
So you want the advantages of insurance without ......
Wait a minute if you are willing to pay the doctor what insurance costs why don't you just PAY FOR INSURANCE?

I don't mind profit but profit is too superficial to stand in the way of treating people when they are sick. Conservatives must learn one lesson if they are ever going to revive their dying party: whenever the conflict rears its ugly head you must always support human beings over corporations; people over profits. By allowing Haliburton and the banks to rip off Americans; conservatives got their buts kicked by the voters.
I wonder if the 250 million insured people in the United States would agree that profit is superficial. While liberal rhetoric would have you believe Conservatives believe in corporations over people, the truth is conservative believe less government control is the best way for the people.

Americans want regulated "freedom"; that's why we adopted a Constitution instead of the Articles of Confederation. Too much freedom just like too much regulation is dangerous. I don't want to pay high health insurance premiums or get denied coverage when I'm sick just because some cowboys want to pound their chest about capitalism and the great American way. Leave the cliches behind and let's begin to run this country pragmatically and strategically.
There are countries full of people that feel exactly as you. This just happens not to be one of them. They aren't just cliches, they are the way we want to live. The way of life ourselves and our family members have fought to preserve. If freedom means I don't get health care at some point in my life, so be it. at least I will not have callouses where the chains resided.

Foreign countries are not adopting our health care model because it does not work. We pay the highest fees and get some of the worst results. Some parts of America have infant mortality rates of third world countries. Foreigners are not flocking to America to use our insurance system. They use our hospitals and doctors that have unique abilities but our health insurance system is outdated and needs to be traded in and demolished like a "cash-for-clunker".
It's been widely proven that the infant mortality numbers aren't accurate because of reporting differences. We can't even decide within our own country when life begins...........
Did you know that the United States has the longest life expectancy if you remove lifestyle factors like automobile deaths and firearm deaths?

Foreigners aren't flocking here to use our insurance? Hell a person from ALABAMA can't get insurance from IOWA. You think a foreigner can?
 
Last edited:
Most businesses time their expenses with their revenues. Its a procedure known as "matching". If a business receives its revenues during a certain time of the year its policies will require claims to be submitted after the revenues are received.

This would be a failure as a business practice. You would be trusting that the money would be coming in to pay your bills. It would take 1 month for enough people to stiff you or be late on their payment or cancel their policy and you would be broke....unless you had some working capital. Oh I forgot you are an Obama guy. I guy if they didn't have enough money they could just call king Obama. He's all about some corporate welfare.
If expenses outweigh revenues at some point then the business fails; and if you have to deny claims and charge excessive premiums to make a profit; then you no longer have a viable business model. In which case your business deserves to fail.
Have you ever heard of or considered "Unexpected Expenses"? Those are things like the motor blows in the company truck, The air conditioner bites the dust, a company loses a lawsuit, in business expenses outweigh revenues sometimes. It whether you are prepared for them that will determine if the business fails.


You are one of the few people in America who will benefit from insurance profits more than you will benefit from insurance reform. The only thing I can tell you is that the will of the majority seems to be against you on this one. You may have to concede defeat on this issue.
Don't be so sure. You might believe the "polls" but I don't. The same party own the White House, Senate, and House. If the majority is so enamored with this idea it should have been a done deal months ago. Fact is it's not being greeted with the "Yes We Can" Attitude it was thought it would. They forgot about the 250 million people that DO have insurance and DO get health care.
 
What makes you think a public option is going to be more affordable?

Congressional studies have indicated that more than 30% of each health care dollar goes to administrative costs, marketing and profits for private insurers. These costs, however, are not carried by a public insurer. So the Public Option can operate 30% cheaper than a private insurer. And furthermore, a national pool of policyholders can spread cost over many people which will keep premiums low. Hospitals will not have to pass along the cost of treating the uninsured to patients that are privately insured. So, even those who like their current private plans will benefit from a Public Option.
 
Last edited:
Congressional studies have indicated that more than 30% of each health care dollar goes to administrative costs, marketing and profits for private insurers. These costs, however, are not carried by a public insurer. So the Public Option can operate 30% cheaper than a private insurer. And furthermore, a national pool of policyholders can spread cost over many people which will keep premiums low.
Do you realize that is last months left wing rhetoric? The Congressional Budget office has come out and said the ACTUAL plans being considered will cost MORE than current plans.
Link HERE
It's not even close to the "free ride" lefty leaders have been selling.

Hospitals will not have to pass along the cost of treating the uninsured to patients that are privately insured. So, even those who like their current private plans will benefit from a Public Option.
So hospitals will get there money for the "uninsured" who are actually now insured from where?
The Government.
And the government get it's money from where?
The citizens.
So at the very least it's a wash.
 
Back
Top Bottom